GG's point — and he does have a point in his too-verbose-to-quote text — is that the Bush administration started the spying on domestic political groups so it's too late for righties to convincingly bitch about it.

118 comments:

Nevertheless, the consequences of a prolonged economicdownturn—including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability to obtain credit—could create a fertile recruiting environment for rightwingextremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities similar to those in the past.Ironically enough, Obama certainly went out of his way to showcase the economic downturn to his great advantage during the election.

Growth of these groups subsided in reaction to increasedgovernment scrutiny as a result of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing anddisrupted plots, improvements in the economy, and the continued U.S. standing as the preeminent world power...Then again maybe Greenwald doesn't consider increased government scrutiny the same as survellience.

Actually I think the best part of the report is that 'disgruntled veterans' will be ripe for the pickings. Those very same troops who Obama said made tremendous achivements in Iraq will now be prime targets for recruitment. I guess the Obama administration feels that inside the heart of every American soldier, there is a Nazi trying to get out.

I am less concerned, than some, about the FBI or DHS doing research on a specific group that has a history or proclivity for violent or illegal behavior. ELF comes to mind, or some of the anarchist groups that you see out in front of the IMF or WB. And sure, some right wing Militia groups. However, the wide ranging, generic nature of the accusations in the report are a bit scary. Examples or specifics wold make it less so, but lumping folks engage in political speech and want lower taxes or are against illegal immigration together with Oklahoma City bombings is a bit of a stretch

Examples or specifics wold make it less so, but lumping folks engage in political speech and want lower taxes or are against illegal immigration together with Oklahoma City bombings is a bit of a stretch..Not if you don't plan to waste a crisis.

I wonder if Naomi Wolf is going to do a sequel to her Shock Doctrine book?

Glen Greenwald is an idiot and a hypocrite. First, even taken his points at face value, if something is wrong it is wrong. Apparently Greenwald never got passed the beatings the little geek no doubt took in grade school and still has a grade school mentality. Greenwald's position seems to be that anyone who ever supported what he considers the violation of someone else's rights forfeits their rights under the Constitution. By that logic, in cheering on oppression of the Right, I guess Greenwald has also forfeited his rights. Clearly, it can't and doesn't work that way. If something is wrong, it is wrong. It is certainly permissible to point out hypocrisy, but it is not permissible to support oppression of one side because you don't like them.

Second, Greenwald as usual lies. The report has nothing to do with spying on people domestically. The report is about criminalizing political opinion. The report talks about how law enforcement should focus on "single issue" groups such as anti-abortion, or states rights groups. It doesn't say they should be spied on. It says basically that by virtue of their they are border line criminal groups and ought to be the focus of law enforcement scrutiny. This is not about failing to get a warrent. This is about getting a warrent and trying to prosecute someone based on their beleifs. Greenwald knows that but changes the subject to "domestic spying" so he can excuse Obama.

Time and time again I hear leftist claim that Greenwald really does object to Obama and is something beyond a propegandist. This puts lie to all that. Greenwald has no objection to any government action taken against people he doesn't like. When the government does bad things to groups he objects to, he just reverts to the school yard bully he always dreamed of being. Greenwald is nothing but a lying crapweasal and no friend of liberty.

the Bush administration started the spying on domestic political groups so it's too late for righties to convincingly bitch about it.

If only report contained actionable intelligence gained from "spying on deomestic political groups."

Instead, the report is aimed simply at preparing the political battlespace. Without basis or foundation, the report is a political document that loops a very large preemptive lasso, such that if a fringe group does do anything remotely terroristic the die has already been cast to impugn a wide range domestic political opponents as contributing to the cause.

"See, we said so right here in this report."

Once again, never be left so flat-footed so as to let a potential crisis go to waste.

"That goes back at least to Nixon and was brought into full force against conservatives by Clinton, as Hoosier documented pretty well."

It goes back to Kennedy and Johnson. RFK wire tapped Martin Luther King. Bill Moyers asked J.Edger Hoover to investigate the sexual preferences of White House staffers. There are many more examples. Kennedy and Johnson were just as bad or worse than Nixon.

Greenwald's point is also that the right-wingers frothing about this report were all too comfortable with and supportive of the ramping up of government surveillance and their sifting through all our electronic communications when they (the rightwingers) assumed it was only "terrorists" who might get caught in the dragnet. He certainly does not minimize the dangers of such broad and indiscriminate government surveillance.

"Greenwald's point is also that the right-wingers frothing about this report were all too comfortable with and supportive of the ramping up of government surveillance and their sifting through all our electronic communications when they (the rightwingers) assumed it was only "terrorists" who might get caught in the dragnet. He certainly does not minimize the dangers of such broad and indiscriminate government surveillance."

Like Greenwald you don't get it. This report has nothing to do with surveillence. It doens't advocate spying on people. It advocates opening law enforcement investigations on people based upon their political views. If you want to call the right out for hypocrisy, call the ones out, if there are any, who advocated investigating an eye on mosques and anti-war groups over the last 8 years for no other reason than their political beliefs.

It is not strange at all if you regard it as a step towards delegitimizing (or outright criminalizing) differing points of view. Take a look at "conservatism" in the UK. Issues like immigration and the right to bear arms have been taken off of the table of legitimate discourse, and relegated to the fringe BMP -thus if you care about those very real, you are automatically lumped in with the crazies.

"Opening up law enforcement investigations on people based on their political views" involves, starts with, and is part and parcel of widespread, unchecked government surveillance. Objections to unchecked and lawless government surveillance--such as the Bush administration practiced--derive from fears that such surveillance will lead to exactly that: "law enforcement investigations of people based on their political views."

Also, Greenwald offers this:

"I was in Minneapolis and St. Paul during the 2008 GOP Convention and witnessed first-hand massive federal police raids and "preventive" arrests of peaceful, law-abiding protesters and even the violent arrests of journalists, and I don't recall any complaints from Jonah Goldberg or Michelle Malkin."He's also not talking about "just" surveillance, but about actual government police actions against political dissent.Greenwald's post is pertinent and cogent, and he rightly calls out the right-wing whiners for their hypocrisy and for their support of the very mechanisms of government power they're now crying about.

First, a lot of people on the right and certainly the libertarian right objected to those. Second, the FBI had evidence that those people were planning acts of violence. If some right wing nut is planning violence, I would hope the FBI does something about it.

Third, if Greenwald thinks those raids are so bad, then why isn't he objecting to the DHS report? Greenwald's position seems to be that because a few right wing pundits didn't object enough to the raids, BO has a blank check to go after the right. In Greenwald's twisted and sick mind I am sure it is A OK to go after anyone he disagrees with.

There is no getting around the fact that Greenwald, when confronted by behavior that he would find objectionable if applied to his own group, excuses the behavior by saying "those people are bad people". Greenwald is nothing but a dishonest hack who will defend BO as long as BO is attacking the right people. Yes, he will attack BO when BO is not being left enough. But, no action directed against the right is extreme in Greenwald's view. Anyone who reads him or pays attention to him should be ashamed of themselves. It is the 21st Century equivilent of reading Morat or Lord Haw Haw.

"Nevertheless, the consequences of a prolonged economicdownturn—including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability to obtain credit—could create a fertile recruiting environment for rightwingextremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities similar to those in the past."

Why not left-wing extremists? Isn't this supposed to be a crisis of capitalism?

Sonicfrog -- The Fresno County Sheriff's Department spied on a peace activist group in Fresno.Sorry. That was kind of an in joke. When this broke, Air America happened to be on in this market (didn't last long) and that was the headline from them.

But still, why did they think it was OK and proper to do this? Evil Bush and Ashcroft, of course! And if they can do this and get away with it, with a wink and a nod from Republicans, then I think it's only fair game that Obama gets in on the action. :-)

A secret Pentagon document obtained by NBC News reveals that the military has been spying on what they call "suspicious" civilian meetings - including many "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" protests.

Only eight pages from the four-hundred page document have been released so far. But on those eight pages, Sirius OutQ News discovered that the Defense Department has been keeping tabs NOT just on anti-war protests, but also on seemingly non-threatening protests against the military's ban on gay servicemembers. According to those first eight pages, Pentagon investigators kept tabs on April protests at UC-Santa Cruz, State University of New York at Albany, and William Patterson College in New Jersey. A February protest at NYU was also listed, along with the law school's gay advocacy group "OUTlaw," and was classified as "possibly violent."

All of these protests were against the military's policy excluding gay personnel, and against the presence of military recruiters on campus. The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network says the Pentagon needs to explain why "don't ask, don't tell" protesters are considered a threat. http://www.americablog.com/2005/12/pentagon-anti-terror-investigators.html

Again - Malkin and Reynolds were the biggest cheerleaders for these policies.

Projection, not just a river in Egypt. Yes, here's the way to earn unaffiliated voter's confidence through impressive viligance. DHS knows very well the most serious threats to actual homeland security have always been right here under our noses and to our immmediate right. Observe and learn the fine art of distraction politics.

This report is pure contrived horseshit from beginning to end all nine pages. If Greenwald cannot remark on that then he's forfeited our attention, for truth he's never had mine. The whole demented lot can just piss off.

* flicks a stylized hard C, the sign deaf friends use for "jaw-drop on you." *

Now, excuse me please while I prepare for a tax and redistribution protest. Wouldn't do to appear on YouTube unaware with disheveled hair.

"There is no getting around the fact that Greenwald, when confronted by behavior that he would find objectionable if applied to his own group, excuses the behavior by saying "those people are bad people"."This is simply untrue. Either you don't read him and simply parrot what others say about him, or you don't understand him. Greenwald has been fairly lacerating in his writing about many of the Obama administration's recent actions. In his very column under discussion here today, he says,

"It's certainly true that federal police efforts directed at domestic political movements -- even ones with a history of inspiring violence in both the distant and recent past -- require real vigilance and oversight, and it's also true that the DHS description of these groups seems excessively broad with the potential for mischief."However, the point of his column today was not about the report itself but about the hypocrisy of the right, whose nearly unanimous support of Bush's trampling of the law and the Constitution in his handling of affairs of state allowed for the expansion of state power to unprecedent levels. The right, to a great degree, through their support of the previous administration, are the authors of the government power they now decry. As the his title for his column points out, "As ye reap, so shall ye sow." You wanted expansive government police powers, you GOT expansive government police powers!

DTL,You posted a link to americabog, not MSNBC. And since MSNBC keeps that foaming at the mouth, rabid psychotic Olbermann, and that gushing raging hormonal teenager, Matthews on the air; yeah, they are a conspiracy "blog".

I guess DTL has never heard of hypocrisy. The Left has continually railed against government spying. Now, Obama has decided to keep the Bush policies intact and his Homeland Security Chief has written a report jsutifying spying.

I guess Obama and the disciples were against the spying before they were for it.

OK. All kidding aside. There was an effort by the justice dept to closely monitor peace groups and such. The Feds may or may not have explicitly pushed for this kind of thing (we'll probably never know - Patriot Act and all that) but they certainly opened the door legally.

And I'll dig up some Rush quotes endorsing these actions..... but I must go eat B-fast now.

The issue isn't about spying. That's the distraction numb nuts wish to talk about. The issue is about a bullshit report released days before the largest aggregate of planned protests yet. If you had been paying attention to any of the protests or read about them or viewed the videos, and I believe you have, you would recognize civility and know a police presence is welcome.

All this talk about spying and surveillance is nonsense and you know it. We know it. You know we know it and yet you persist. Through all this you've managed to avoid talking about the actual report which is the subject of discussion. That's what makes you an ass hole of the very first order. You continue too in the use of the term teabag knowing full well its lewd connotation and that the original humor there was has worn bare and yet you persist. That's what makes you uncreative, unimaginative and boorish, and that's the most unforgivable of all. Come now, show us more of your anger and your resolute boorishness and then presume to instruct us on matters gay. I learn so much from you how not to be.

"It's certainly true that federal police efforts directed at domestic political movements -- even ones with a history of inspiring violence in both the distant and recent past -- require real vigilance and oversight, and it's also true that the DHS description of these groups seems excessively broad with the potential for mischief."

That is totally disengenuous. Does Greenwald think that they should keep taps on Green Peace because ELF are terrorists? Hell no. But he sure as hell thinks they should keep tabs on anyone who is anti-abortion because 10 years ago someone bombed and abortion clinic. That is exactly what I am talking about.

"However, the point of his column today was not about the report itself but about the hypocrisy of the right, whose nearly unanimous support of Bush's trampling of the law and the Constitution in his handling of affairs of state allowed for the expansion of state power to unprecedent levels."

That is my point. Greenwald doesn't write a collumn objecting to the report because he doesn't care. He would rather score points about the Right. He doesnt' give a rats ass if anyone on the right is oppressed by the government. It would make his day. He doesn't write a collumn objecting to this because he doens't object to it. You just made my point for me.

No, if you read Greenwald regularly--which you obviously don't--he addresses such issues frequently. He does not attempt to cover ALL issues in every column he writes. His column today highlights rightwing hypocrisy in now protesting that which they previously favored.

"He does not attempt to cover ALL issues in every column he writes. His column today highlights rightwing hypocrisy in now protesting that which they previously favored."

I will be waiting with bated breath for Greenwald to write a collumn condeming this report. It won't happen and you know it. Greenwald will break ranks with BO if it involves Islamists or people he sympathizes with, but he will never criticize BO over people he doesn't like. That is why Greenwald is a hypocrite.

DTL: "All of these protests were against the military's policy excluding gay personnel"

This isn't the military's policy, it mandated by federal law Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. § 654).

I will stipulate though, that if the military did spy on groups opposed to DADT, they shouldn't have.

This is not to say I think they (the military) did anything illegal. The spying may have just consisted of attending public meetings. I think it was bad policy in that any valuable intel is more than offset by bad pr.

Neither do I. I also do not countenance the cameras on polls all over the city allowing the City to spy on people. But the oh so liberal ACLU thinks that spying on the locals is OK as long as the Republicans do not do it. Democrat mayor spying is OK. Republican WHite House- big no no.

Greenwald's point is also that the right-wingers frothing about this report were all too comfortable with and supportive of the ramping up of government surveillance and their sifting through all our electronic communications when they (the rightwingers) assumed it was only "terrorists" who might get caught in the dragnet.Almost right.

I'll use the case of John Ashcroft as an example. In the Senate, Ashcroft played a major role in blocking Clinton's efforts to expand government surveillance. Come 9/11, though, he reversed his policy.

Why? Not because he suddenly thought the the powers couldn't be abused. Instead, because that after a couple of thousand Americans died, he considered the risks of not failing to keep tabs on terrorists to be greater than the risks of the abuse of the surveillance. One of the elements that goes into such a calculation is the belief that people will "froth" whenever the power is abused.

From this perspective, Greenwald is like an opponent of arming police who says, "Told you so!" to people who protest when a cop deliberately shoots an unarmed innocent. Sure, you can say that the shooting could only have happened if the police were armed, but that doesn't mean it isn't perfectly reasonable to believe both that police should be armed and that police shouldn't shoot unarmed innocents.

If you acknowledge protests about abuse of power as legitimate only when the protesters oppose even non-abusive exercise of the power, you are aiding the cause of those who would abuse power. Because in that case, you're framing the choice as that between anarchy and tyranny; given that choice, the great bulk of the people will choose tyranny.

Interesting. Maybe it'll be like the Hoover years in reverse. I expect the Right to use the FOIA to full effect and then publish the Government's big fat intelligence reports on Rush Limbaugh or Dangerous Tea Party Culture ---with many fat black lines through the bits that were redacted for national security.

Greenwald's point is also that the right-wingers frothing about this report were all too comfortable with and supportive of the ramping up of government surveillance and their sifting through all our electronic communications when they (the rightwingers) assumed it was only "terrorists" who might get caught in the dragnet.-Well then GG is being dishonest, again. Conservatives made a distinction between POTUS gathering warfighting intelligence on our enemies VS gathering evidence for trial, ie. we should monitor traffic that crosses american servers re a nuclear 9-11, but any info gained should not be admissable in court.

- Right wingers are stocking up on guns and ammo around the country, even creating shortages.

- A right winger (beyond conservative) goes on a killing spree, killing 3 cops because he didn't want his guns taken away.

- The conservative movement whips up hysteria among the grassroots, with whacked out claims that Obama wants to take their guns away, turn this into a socialist country, yadda yadda. And the nutroots respond.

- Threats of violence are up all over the place.

- Weakening economy is a breeding ground for extremism.

I think DHS should be very careful about monitoring such things and steer way clear of infringing on Constitutional rights. (but, then I believe in those rights and few con's really do).

But for the people who cheered on warrantless surveillance and other infringements on freedom to whine now only invites derision and laughter.

The coming revolution is akin to "Fight Club," the 1999 film that follows the struggles of day to day life for a regular guy who starts an underground fight club as radical and not terribly productive psychotherapy.

As Brad Pitt's character, Tyler Durden, says in the movie, "Fight Club was the beginning, now it's moved out of the basement, it's called Project Mayhem."Via Wash Monthly.

So, the right wing is vowing violence and then think no-one should notice them or take them seriously.

I think the real problem with the report is that it does not identfy left wing radicals, who actually pose just a large a threat. They are also the most active domestic terrorists. ELF is a good example.

The report was not a fair and balanced interpretation of extemism or radicalism. It was just too onesided.

FoxNews report: Well this is an element of the story which has largely gone unreported. One looks at right-wing groups, as you mentioned. And a second is on left-wing groups. Significantly, both were requested by the Bush administration but not finished until President Bush left office.Bush orders the reports. Right wing bashes Obama over them and goes into Full Lathered Paranoia Mode.

I've been around the left for a long, long time. And, no, they don't [use "rhetoric steeped in violence"]. When one does, one gets corrected not to use such harsh language.I see: They never do that, except when they do; and then, of course, they're told not to.

I'm not sure what "by any means necessary" conveys to you, but I've encountered that particular bit of MalcolmXiana at any number of protests about any number of issues here in the Bay Area. Along with the occasional burning-in-effigy. No doubt the associations of these things in the protestors' minds were entirely peaceable. Still ...

GG's point — and he does have a point in his too-verbose-to-quote text — is that the Bush administration started the spying on domestic political groups so it's too late for righties to convincingly bitch about it..

What domestic non-terrorist groups did the Bush administration spy on? I'm not saying there weren't any, but if there were then I've forgotten which ones they were.

Anyway, others have already pointed out that Clinton did this sort of thing long before Bush, and other Presidents did it before Clinton. Blaming it on Bush is, therefore, pretty silly.

Well, I'm sure in AL's mind "Yes, racists, we will fight, we know where you sleep at night" is in no way a threat of violence. Well, of course. "Fight," as we have often been told, refers to a purely spiritual struggle. And the reference to "where you sleep at night" is obviously to the old idea that sleepers rest in the hands of God. Who could possibly wangle a hint of a threat out of that?

"Blaming it on Bush is, therefore, pretty silly."Under your criteria, then it's even more silly to blame it on Obama.

My own view is that ALL Presidents who abuse government power to spy on or open law enforcement investigations of individuals or groups who are simply politically dissident--but nonviolent--should be blamed and criticized. "He did it too" is not a defense even to one's parents, much less before the law.

GG's point...is that the Bush administration started the spying on domestic political groupsThis is precisely the sort of rampant historical ignorance that renders liberal opinions utterly worthless. Has Glenn Greenwald ever heard of J. Edgar Hoover? Probably not, he's that level of half-wit.

"Has Glenn Greenwald ever heard of J. Edgar Hoover? Probably not, he's that level of half-wit."Greenwald has never said Bush started spying on domestic political groups. His point is that the right wing hacks who now are in high dudgeon over this report--which as others have pointed out, was started last year and discusses information which had been largely (or wholly) collected before Obama took office--were in full accord with Bush's expansion of government police and surveillance power. They didn't even complain about his increased surveillance having been illegal. His point is about their hypocrisy, and about their happiness to embrace such intrusive government power when it is wielded by an administration whom they favor.

Damn, Revenant, how did you get the line-break after the italics? I tried putting in an extra return, but it did nothing at all.

I do it like this:

<i>Damn, Revenant, how did you get the line-break after the italics? I tried putting in an extra return, but it did nothing at all</i>.

Note that the trailing period *follows* the close of italics. That gets around the annoying bug that blogger introduced this week. The period gets appended to the end of the italicized portion, and then the text afterwards is treated normally.

It looks like the problem is that all whitespace (spaces, line feeds, etc) following closed italics are being ignored. Stick any non-whitespace character after the closed italics to work around this.

They didn't even complain about his increased surveillance having been illegal. His point is about their hypocrisy[snip]

We would be hypocrites if Bush had been using his expanded surveillance powers to target political enemies and we'd supported it. But he didn't, and we didn't. We supported his use of surveillance powers to target terrorist groups. We supported the use of surveillance, not the abuse of surveillance.

By no stretch of the imagination are anti-immigration activists terrorists, or affiliated with terrorists, or even favorably inclined TOWARDS terrorists. Targeting them for government surveillance would be an abuse of Presidential surveillance powers.

Yes, Obama would quite likely have a legal right to do such spying, just as Bush had a legal right to do what he did. But "legal" and "acceptable" are not synonyms. :)

I agree with Bella. The problem is not with mentioning that there are potential right-wing threats. There are. It was how Napolitano's people emphasized them and gave short shrift to the threat of environmentalist terror, left wing anarchy groups, gangs like the Mexican cartels and MS-13.

And also their attempt to link military service in combat zones to proclivity to wanting to be "future right wing menaces".

All the bulldyke did was tick off Vet's groups with the association:

The American Legion is well aware and horrified at the pain inflicted during the Oklahoma City bombing, but Timothy McVeigh was only one of more than 42 million veterans who have worn this nation's uniform during wartime,"; said Rehbein, who group comprises some 2.6 million members.

"Napolitano said she will meet with Rehbein and several concerned Congress Reps to explain how her agency's remarks were misconstrued and how supportive of Vets Homeland Security is".

"We supported his use of surveillance powers to target terrorist groups. We supported the use of surveillance, not the abuse of surveillance".

But his surveillance was illegal, so even if he had restricted it to so-called "terrorist groups," it was improper and objectionable. However, we don't and can't know he was surveilling only terrorists, because, first of all, we don't have access to all the data they collected in order to analyze who was surveilled, and second of all, how can we or he know they're surveilling terrorists before the fact?

Oh...you just trusted him to tell you the truth.

Never trust the government--any government--to tell the truth, particularly when headed by a serial liar like Bush.

Imagine Greenwald's response if the Bush DHS issued a confidential report to state and local police labelling NARAL, La Raza, the Brady Center and liberals who believe in the desirability of federal government supremacy over the states as "leftwing extremists" prone to domestic terrorism akin to the Weather Underground and Black Panthers and requested state and local law enforcement to partner with DHS in identifying these potential terrorists.

Good heavens! That alone would have been enough to get Greenwald to pen about twenty interminably repetitive posts calling for Bush's impeachment, which he would turn into a book.

But his surveillance was illegal, so even if he had restricted it to so-called "terrorist groups," it was improper and objectionable.

You're entitled to your opinion that it was illegal. I consider the question of its legality to be irrelevant, since nobody's going to get charged for it even if it was illegal. What is relevant to me is that whether it was legal or not, it was the right thing to do.

On the other hand, spying political opponents because they hold entirely legal (and widely-held) views that you happen to disagree with is wrong -- even if it is legal to do.

However, we don't and can't know he was surveilling only terrorists.

We don't know that Barack Obama isn't buggering five-year-old boys in the Oval Office. But it would be irresponsible to accuse him of doing so without evidence.

You are trying to claim that conservatives are "hypocrites" for decrying the surveillance of right-wing groups because it is *possible* that Bush spied on left-wing groups, even if you haven't got a lick of evidence for that. That's a bullshit argument, and you know it. Especially since most conservatives, Malkin and Reynolds included, would have vehemently condemned Bush for doing that.

You can't call a person a hypocrite for failing to condemn something that never happened, especially if it is clear he would have condemned it if it had.

I didn't claim it is "possible" Bush spied on left wing groups, I assert that he was spying on millions of Americans, period.

Substituting one unsubstantiated claim for another doesn't make your argument any more valid.

In a nation of laws, if "the right thing to do," so-called, is illegal, neither you, nor I nor the government can do it.So Rosa Parks was in the wrong when she refused to give up her seat to a white guy. Good to know.

From the DHS report:DHS/I&A will be working with its state and local partners over the next several months to ascertain with greater regional specificity the rise in rightwing extremist activity in the United StatesAnyone else notice the assumption there?

Not to ascertain IF there is a rise ...

...to ascertain the rise in rightwing extemism ...

I read elsewhere that a previous report looked at ELF and other domestic left wing groups.

What I find weird is that there is no "rightwing" groups named. No description of who they are and how they recruit and operate. Why not?

I mean, did they even mention the KKK?

There are words for this kind of drivel professionally. And they are not complimentary.

What do you think the recent revision of the FISA law was about? It rewrote the previous FISA law to retroactively make legal the illegal electronic evesdropping the Bush administration had been conducting. It also extended retroactive protection to the telecoms for their participation in the illegal wiretapping. This is not in dispute; it has been written about at great length, including by your supposed bete noire, Glenn Greenwald.

Also, there's this, currently ongoing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepting_v._AT&T

As for Rosa Parks, a citizen or even a group may choose to violate what they consider to be unjust laws in hopes they can bring about a change in those laws, and we rightly applaud such brave citizens. However, they cannot expect to violate the laws while they're in force and simply be given a pass. This is what civil disobedience is about: the willingness to endure criminal prosecution in protest against unjust or tyrannical state power.

The government, of course, cannot commit civil disobedience, as they author the laws. If they consider a law to be "unjust," or to be otherwise an impediment to acts they wish to commit, they are obliged to openly and publicly revise or rescind such laws by vote of Congress. In fact, the Bush administration lied in claiming they acted without court approval of their wiretapping because they FISA laws were supposedly too unwieldy, too slow to allow them to act with the alacrity that they claim was necessary. The FISA law allowed immediate action but simply required court approval within 72 hours if the wiretapping involved an American Citizen. Thus, there was no impediment to swift action. They lied. More pertinent, earlier in the Bush administration (post 9/11) there had been talk in Congress of revising the FISA law, and the Bush administration declined, saying there was no need to change it as it affored them all the power and flexibility they needed.

Their later claim that FISA required revision, (successfully accomplished, with a vote in favor by our "socialist/fascist" (sic) now-President Obama, a betrayal of his vow to vote against any revision that extended retroactive legal protections to the telecoms), was simply a ploy to retroactively "undo" the criminality of their wiretapping and to protect the telecoms from penalty for being accomplices to the crimes.

What do you think the recent revision of the FISA law was about?Letting Congress save face by "granting" the President the power to do something he was already doing despite their objections.

However, they cannot expect to violate the laws while they're in force and simply be given a pass.Obviously they can. Notice how Bush isn't in jail?

The government, of course, cannot commit civil disobedience, as they author the laws.Congress authors the laws. The executive enforces them, and the executive has at various points throughout our history ignored unjust or badly-thought-out laws. Obviously we should always watch carefully when this happens, to make sure the executive isn't trying to set himself up as an unaccountable tyrant. But it was obvious that Bush wasn't doing anything along those lines.

The FISA law allowed immediate action but simply required court approval within 72 hours if the wiretapping involved an American Citizen. Thus, there was no impediment to swift action. They lied.Just because you don't understand the needs of the program doesn't mean the Bush administration was lying about them. It is pretty clear that the program in question didn't involve human beings listening in on a small number of calls. It involved software monitoring an enormous volume of calls, possibly for keyword content but most probably simply to monitor the connections themselves. Either way we're talking about more FISA applications per day than an army of lawyers could possibly write and sign off on.

More pertinent, earlier in the Bush administration (post 9/11) there had been talk in Congress of revising the FISA law, and the Bush administration declined, saying there was no need to change it as it affored them all the power and flexibility they needed.That's entirely consistent with their position that they didn't need FISA approval for the wiretapping program.

“So, if you guys are arming yourselves, yeah, that's interesting. And a concern.”

Alpha, that is Un-American and un-patriotic. The SCOTUS rightly ruled that there is a Second Amendment- it is in the Constitution FYI- right to own guns. No true American would deny people a right guaranteed by their government. No true, patriotic American would be concerned about people upholding their Constitutional Rights.

Also, no true, patriotic American would have made the low subhuman comments you made about the tragic shooting incident.

In short, you support a lawless government that does as it pleases, fearing and suffering no consequences, simply on their say so as to what is "necessary."

In short, we should just "trust them" to know what's best for us.

Now that you've admitted to being a totalitarian, it will be easier to understand the thinking behind your comments. By this reasoning, you have no cause ever to question the Obama administration (or any administration past, present or future); after all, they know more than you or I about what's going on and thus have more and better information as to what must be done to resolve crises, even if it involves violating the law or the Constitution.

In short, you support a lawless government that does as it pleases, fearing and suffering no consequences, simply on their say so as to what is "necessary."That's not a very intelligent reading of what I said, but if it comforts you to believe it then go on ahead and do so.

"What do you think the recent revision of the FISA law was about?Letting Congress save face by "granting" the President the power to do something he was already doing despite their objections."

It was for something that needed doing, and FISA was 30 years out of date - assuming that FISA bound the President in the first place (and, despite repeated protestations by the left to the contrary, this was never really litigated or clear).

"The FISA law allowed immediate action but simply required court approval within 72 hours if the wiretapping involved an American Citizen. Thus, there was no impediment to swift action. They lied."

This shows how little you know about FISA AND the TSP. For one thing, they needed to get all the paper work filed for the minimization w/i the 72 hours, a task that usually took weeks, if not months. Gonzales, Hayden, et al. all testified that this provision was ineffective. Either you summarily declare them to be liars since you disagree with them with no facts to back yourself up, or listen to what they said, and apply it to the law and intelligence gathering programs, and realize that, hey, guess what, they are right. Congress, faced with the facts, agreed with them, and not you.

"What do you think the recent revision of the FISA law was about? It rewrote the previous FISA law to retroactively make legal the illegal electronic evesdropping the Bush administration had been conducting."

That presupposes that FISA bound the President at the height of his Article II powers, in the case of the NSA TSP, etc. The Youngstown concurrence, which is what is usually invoked here by those claiming that these programs illegally violated FISA, involved President Truman operating much further from the center of his Article II powers, and instead near the center of Congress' Article I powers.

I do say they're lying. The FISA statue had stood for decades with no call for their revision and no one indicating a need to revisit them.

You obviously didn't check the link I provided where Greenwalk, back in 2007, talked about how there was a move afoot in Congress in 2002 (post 9/11) to revise the FISA laws, and the Bush administration demurred, saying the laws provided them all they need to act.

Greenwald today has a column about the further abuses of surveillance powers that have resulted from the recent revision in the FISA laws, revisions that, we were assured by the Bush administration and its apologists--including Obama--would "protect our civil liberties." As if.